Justify the belief that gods do not exist.

[wiploc]

Some people believe that gods do not exist. (One can call this position "atheism" or "strong atheism" or "anti-theist perversion," anything you want. But we aren't going to argue terminology in this thread. Clarity is good, so you can explain what you personally mean by "atheist," but you shouldn't suggest that other usages are inferior.)

This thread is to make a list of arguments, of reasons to believe that theism is false.

And we can discuss the soundness of those arguments.

I'll start:

1. The Parable of the Pawnbroker.
(I'll just post titles here, so as not to take too much space at the top of each thread.)

2. Presumptive Falsity of Outrageous Claims.



Feel free to add to this list.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 483 by Fundagelico]

No, we have <300 years of no examples of life coming from non life in the modern environment.

Just how many years of continual disconfirmation would it take to falsify the theory?

My take is simply this: To the extent that abiogenesis is falsifiable, it has been falsified. To the extent that abiogenesis is not falsifiable, it lacks the rigor of a testable scientific theory. In either case belief in abiogenesis appears about as empirically justified as belief in creationism. (I say that not as an empiricist but as a creationist.)

No, it has not been falsified, and it is falsifiable. If no plausible sequence of chemical reactions and physical actions could have resulted in life over a 1 billion year period across the entire Earth, then it is falsified. Lacking a developed mechanism does not mean the transition is unreasonable.

If it were, then non-theistic abiogenesis would be the preferable hypothesis, being simpler in concept.

Even though the environment was completely different billions of years ago.
And we don't observe every environment.

Okay, good. Now if we consider ourselves free to believe that currently unobservable events have occurred in currently unobservable environments, then we should also consider ourselves free to believe in things like angels rejoicing in heaven over the virgin birth of Jesus in Bethlehem.

Abiogenesis could in practice be observed, not to mention that it doesn't need to be itself observed (the entire process) to justify it.

We don't assume requirements without justification, hence we don't assume a God without justification.

And we might even miss an early stage of life if we did see it. Vesicles can form naturally and may have been key in abiogenesis.

That's like claiming that since a volcano hasn't formed in your back yard, they must be formed magically.

I'm not sure who would make that claim. As a Christian theist I personally don't think it follows from the failure of inanimate matter to produce life that magic must have produced it instead. All I am saying is that you and I both accept the truth of certain extraordinary claims. Do you disagree?

Either A) Life is eternal, B) Life can naturally come from no living matter, or C) Life can come unnaturally from no living matter

magic
(noun) the power of apparently influencing events by using mysterious or supernatural forces.
(adjective) having or apparently having supernatural powers

As for naturalism - one wonders what would actually miss the definition of natural.

If naturalism is true, it's very obvious to me that nothing non-, extra- or super-natural would exist. What I wonder about more, then, is whether naturalism is true.

... Yet you haven't actually elaborated whatsoever on the idea. You've just said "if everything that exists is natural... things that aren't natural don't exist". What qualifies as natural? What doesn't?

[Danmark]

The OP takes this on by asking debaters to prove a negative, that 'gods do not exist.'

This may be splitting hairs, but I'm not sure that justifying a belief is exactly the same as proving that the belief is true.

This is a high burden indeed. I confess that it is too high.

Do you believe that there is a lion in your bathroom, which will kill and eat you next time you go to take a leak? No? You don't believe the lion is there, and you're not even undecided on the issue, are you? A reasonable person would believe that the lion is not there. Shucks, I believe the lion isn't there, and I've never even seen your bathroom.

What if we make it an invisible lion? Does that make it more likely or less?

There are worse things than lions, invisible or otherwise, in my bathroom.
But you are correct, I don't believe there are lions in my bathroom. They may be in there, but if so they manage to leave before I get there. I see no evidence that they had been there, so I've come to rely on our shared belief.

Indeed, I think you are correct, there is a difference between 'justifying' and 'proving.' It was error for me to conflate the two.
We can justify our belief in the absence of lions in my bathroom, but we can not absolutely prove an invisible one at least is not there. To invisibility we'd also have to add silent and without mass. Otherwise stated, we cannot disprove the existence of a spiritual lion.

That is the problem with the 'God' concept. It is not falsifiable. It's like saying 'detect the undetectable.' We can neither prove nor disprove the unprovable absolutely. This is why the entire concept of 'spirits' and a 'spiritual world' seems so silly to me. It stands for the proposition that there is something beyond our ability to detect. Adding to the unbelievability is the notion that these spirits interact with a material world. How could such a non thing interact with a material world?

But I agree we can justify our unbelief. To me it seems obvious that God was invented to explain what at the time was not explainable and the belief persists almost solely because of tradition. As DI points out, it is easier, much easier to justify a disbelief in a specific God because we can look at the contradictions and faulty logic contained in the documents that testify to this specific God. But to the extent this 'God' is beyond definition and undetectable, separate from human culture, then this as an unprovable and non disprovable X. This is a God even a non theist can believe in because it is not a God of theism. This X is a mere concept.

[Danmark]

....
If naturalism is true, it's very obvious to me that nothing non-, extra- or super-natural would exist. What I wonder about more, then, is whether naturalism is true.

I agree that 'if naturalism is true' then the supernatural does not exist.
Since we know nature exists and we have no evidence of anything outside of nature, it is reasonable to conclude "the supernatural does not exist."

[KenRU]

An omnipotent entity is about the only sort of entity I would consider capable of existing forever.

So, a more fantastic explanation becomes more reasonable?

Not exactly. Keep in mind, the question here is which of the two claims is more extraordinary. To assert that an eternally self-existent creator is more fantastic than an eternally self-existent universe begs that question (by ascribing to the universe properties it does not appear to have). Evidently theists are not alone in believing extraordinary claims.

This seems rather disingenuous. Using your analogy, you say this:
A “self-existent universe� is equally as believable and fantastic as sentient “self-existent creator�.

Did I get that right?

Again, a more fantastic explanation becomes more believable. Rather than admitting we don’t know, we should create a more complex answer?

Again, the assertion that theism is more fantastic or more complex than naturalism (materialism, physicalism, whatever) only begs the question. Now if we really don't know which claim is more complex or more fantastic, we clearly have no basis for making authoritative pronouncements that one is more complex or fantastic than the other. Meanwhile we have a long history of empirical research demonstrating that living organisms do not in fact emerge unaided from non-living matter – dust or otherwise.

If your assertion is correct, then off the bat, you admit to having no evidence at all for a Creator. Bringing us back to why the need for a supernatural explanation.

Under no definition is a sentient, all powerful being equally as fantastic as a natural explanation. Since no one is claiming that the universe is sentient, you have the existence of said Creator to explain, plus its sentiency.

Gentic similarity notwithstanding, right?

Right. Evolution of humans implies not merely that humans have a closer genetic similarity to some organisms than to others (a fact which should surprise no one), but that humans are currently evolving (presumably into something non-human). The latter seems to me a far more extraordinary claim.

As I understand evolution (and I am by no means an evolutionary biologist), all life is continuously evolving. And, there is massive evidence to support Evolution.

I’m not sure how you can assert that these two are equally fantastic. It would seem to me (as is evidenced by my conversations with many theists) that this is a matter of faith, something most are very proud of. It is a leap they are most proud to admit to.

[instantc]

I agree with the point on parsimony as a form of justification.

I agree that the principle of parsimony is a part-justification for lacking the belief in God. I don't see how it justifies the belief that God does not exist.

The principle of parsimony tells us not to posit causes beyond necessity. Occam's razor tells us to pick a simpler explanation from two otherwise equal sample explanations. There is no widely accepted principle that suggests that unparsimonious explanations are not true or likely not true.

[KenRU]

Post 381 made me think this was your reasoning:
“I'm not assuming it. It's still possible for for a naturalistic explanation to be proven true. But, I'm just making the prediction that one will never be found.�

That’s why I said “in essence�. You believe that none will be found, correct? Was I wrong?

Yes, I did say that. But, I'm not saying that lack of evidence is evidence for belief in the supernatural.

Unless I’m mistaken, this was in the context of discussing the need for a universe to have a Creator. So, if you’re not saying the lack of scientific evidence available to explain the origin of the universe necessitates the need a supernatural explanation, then what are you saying?

Before I go about showing how you're mistaken, exactly what properties of god are proven to be false by science?
Does it matter?

You were the one to bring it up.

So, you’re arguing that science has not proven any properties of god false, therefore it can not be a “god of the gaps� belief? If you’re not saying this, then by definition, it is indeed just that.

No, I'm not arguing that. I'm just asking what properties of god are proven to be false by science.

If the properties of god (what he has been attributed to have done or is currently doing) are explained by science, then it is a God of the Gaps belief system.

I'd agree with that.

We’re going to get into a whole new debate if I start naming these. But, given that the only thing anyone knows about god are in the holy books, and there are factual errors in the these holy books (I assume you agree with this, correct?), aren’t we already starting off with this proof? The Earth being created before the stars, the Creation Story, evolution etc.

We can debate the merits of each, but, if any of these are bible stories are inaccurate, then it’s a god of the gaps belief.

Not having an answer is a far smaller leap of logic then the leap to an supernatural entity or origin.

If arguments for God just rested solely on the cosmological argument, I can somewhat agree with you. But, there are other independent arguments that also support the idea of God. So, it's not that much of a leap as you suggest.

I’d love to hear them.

My only point in bringing up the origin of the universe was challenging the claim that there was zero evidence for God. I'm not going to get into any of the other arguments since that is not the point of this thread. And speaking of which, if anybody does have arguments and evidence to support the belief that gods do not exist, please present them. It's been awhile since any has been presented.

I maintain that “there is zero evidence for god� is indeed a solid argument. If you have evidence which disproves my claim, I’d love to hear it, as I’m sure many here would as well.

Science also has many models that account for how it began - without the need for a Cause.

Yes, there are models. But it requires things like a multiverse, or eternally existing laws, or imaginary time. All of which are, at best, highly speculative and with no evidence to support them.

And how is god not: at best, highly speculative and with no evidence to support it?

Because there exist many other independent arguments and evidence to support God, besides the origin of the universe.

Please explain, I’d love to know more about this evidence.

[Divine Insight]

I agree that 'if naturalism is true' then the supernatural does not exist.
Since we know nature exists and we have no evidence of anything outside of nature, it is reasonable to conclude "the supernatural does not exist."

There is a problem with this conclusion however. You say that we know that nature exists and have no evidence of anything outside of nature. But the problem here is that we don't have a complete and full understanding of what nature entails. Therefore how can we conclude that "The supernatural does not exist"?

How can we even speak of the supernatural when we don't know what the natural entails or encompasses?

Are multiple universes supernatural? Scientists have good reasons to suspect that they might exist. Would they then be outside of nature? And if they are, then we already have scientific reasons to suspect that the supernatural exists.

Same thing can be said of extra dimensions in our own universe. Do they exist or not? We have no direct evidence that they exist, yet many scientists feel certain that they must exist. So are extra dimension natural or supernatural?

How can we even speak of the supernatural when we have no clue what constitutes nature?

If some giant man opened up the sky and looked us in the eye we'd suddenly have reason to believe that this is natural because it's actually happening.

In fact, I submit to you that if God exists they necessarily must be natural. In other words they must be part of the natural world.

It that's the case then the term supernatural is meaningless because if a God exists it would be a part of nature.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 505 by instantc]

Which widely accepted principle allows us to reasonably believe that dragons, faries and a hollow Earth are not real?

If you don't think those are worthy of saying that we know they don't exist (I'm not saying we couldn't be proven wrong), then we just disagree semantically, but personally I think that leaves open almost anything to being unknown.

[instantc]

[Replying to post 505 by instantc]

Which widely accepted principle allows us to reasonably believe that dragons, faries and a hollow Earth are not real?

If you are going to throw claims at me using a shotgun method, I'm not going to discredit each one separately, but let me say this about the above examples.

Dragons are most likely not real. We know this, because had they existed in the past, we could reasonably expect to see some evidence, such as their bones and other remains.

Fairies are most likely not real. Since they are supposed to be physical creatures, we would expect to see all kinds of evidence that they leave behind.

Hollow earth is not real. We have a good understanding of what the earth is made of.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 509 by instantc]

That's not a shotgun method. All three fall under the same thing. Parsimony.

What if dragons and fairies only live in the hollow inside of the Earth? The Earth might be such shaped that using seismic waves may not accurately depict the innards of the Earth. Seismic readings may be wrong on large scales anyway.

There are all kinds of ad hoc justifications you can use.
Who knows, maybe fairies and dragons are spiritual.